IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i1p21582440241230363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the Number of Response Categories Impact Validity Evidence in Self-Report Measures? A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed A. A. Abulela
  • Mustafa Ali Khalaf

Abstract

The optimal number of responses categories (NRC) is among the most discussed, yet least decided, topic in self-report measures. In addition, there is a dearth of scoping reviews that summarize its impact on validity evidence (e.g., evidence-based on internal structure). To that end, we conducted a scoping review of methodological literature to provide self-report measures developers and applied researchers with evidence-based recommendations when selecting the optimal NRC. Given the inconsistent results reported in previous research, a key recommendation, when conducting cognitive interviews, is to investigate the interpretation of response options by a sample of potential participants who have varying perspectives. This procedure is paramount to ascertain that response options are accurately interpreted and function as intended. The present scoping review is expected to become a valuable resource for applied researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions about the optimal NRC, taking into account validity evidence, and therefore contributes to the literature of educational and psychological measurement and research methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed A. A. Abulela & Mustafa Ali Khalaf, 2024. "Does the Number of Response Categories Impact Validity Evidence in Self-Report Measures? A Scoping Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1), pages 21582440241, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:1:p:21582440241230363
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241230363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241230363
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241230363?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalja Menold & Christof Wolf & Kathrin Bogner, 2018. "Design aspects of rating scales in questionnaires," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 63-65, April.
    2. J. Ramsay, 1973. "The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(4), pages 513-532, December.
    3. Nowlis, Stephen M & Kahn, Barbara E & Dhar, Ravi, 2002. "Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 319-334, December.
    4. Natacha Borgers & Dirk Sikkel & Joop Hox, 2004. "Response Effects in Surveys on Children and Adolescents: The Effect of Number of Response Options, Negative Wording, and Neutral Mid-Point," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 17-33, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carney, JoLynn V. & Liu, Yanhong & Hazler, Richard J., 2018. "A path analysis on school bullying and critical school environment variables: A social capital perspective," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 231-239.
    2. Weijters, Bert & Cabooter, Elke & Schillewaert, Niels, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 236-247.
    3. Heleen van der Meulen & Rinaldo Kühne & Suzanna J. Opree, 2018. "Validating the Material Values Scale for Children (MVS-c) for Use in Early Childhood," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 11(4), pages 1201-1216, August.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:48-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Sánchez, Gonzalo E. & Rhodes, Lauren A. & Espinoza, Nereyda E. & Borja, Viviana, 2022. "Assessing the Gap between Social and Individual Perceptions of Sexual Harassment," MPRA Paper 112711, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Reich, Taly & Fulmer, Alexander G. & Dhar, Ravi, 2022. "In the face of self-threat: Why ambivalence heightens people’s willingness to act," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Gádor Indra Hidalgo & Fermín Sánchez-Carracedo & Daniel Romero-Portillo, 2021. "COVID-19 Emergency Remote Teaching Opinions and Academic Performance of Undergraduate Students: Analysis of 4 Students’ Profiles. A Case Study," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(17), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Ayako Kohno & Maznah Dahlui & Nik Daliana Nik Farid & Norlaili Abdul Aziz & Takeo Nakayama, 2021. "Development of Early Marriage Attitude Scale: A Multi-Dimensional Scale for Measuring the Attitudes Toward Child Marriage," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, August.
    9. Duane F. Alwin, 1997. "Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-Point Scales," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 25(3), pages 318-340, February.
    10. repec:plo:pone00:0224059 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Anne Hamby & Cristel Russell, 2022. "How does ambivalence affect young consumers’ response to risky products?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 841-863, July.
    12. Richard Sawatzky & Pamela Ratner & Joy Johnson & Jacek Kopec & Bruno Zumbo, 2009. "Sample Heterogeneity and the Measurement Structure of the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 273-296, November.
    13. Toepoel, V. & Das, J.W.M. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2005. "Design of Web Questionnaires : A Test for Number of Items per Screen," Discussion Paper 2005-114, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. Jae Seo, Won & Christine Green, B. & Jae Ko, Yong & Lee, Seunghwan & Schenewark, Jarrod, 2007. "The Effect of Web Cohesion, Web Commitment, and Attitude toward the Website on Intentions to Use NFL Teams' Websites," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 231-252, November.
    15. Christian Genest & Johanna G. Nešlehová, 2014. "A Conversation with James O. Ramsay," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 82(2), pages 161-183, August.
    16. Susanne Vogl, 2015. "Children’s verbal, interactive and cognitive skills and implications for interviews," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 319-338, January.
    17. Cabooter, Elke & Weijters, Bert & Geuens, Maggie & Vermeir, Iris, 2016. "Scale format effects on response option interpretation and use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2574-2584.
    18. Haunberger Sigrid, 2014. "Item Nonresponse in Face-to-Face Interviews with Children," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 30(3), pages 459-477, September.
    19. Sipilä, Jenni & Herold, Kristiina & Tarkiainen, Anssi & Sundqvist, Sanna, 2017. "The influence of word-of-mouth on attitudinal ambivalence during the higher education decision-making process," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 176-187.
    20. Antonio Tintori & Giulia Ciancimino & Giorgio Giovanelli & Loredana Cerbara, 2021. "Bullying and Cyberbullying among Italian Adolescents: The Influence of Psychosocial Factors on Violent Behaviours," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-11, February.
    21. Luis Márquez & Víctor Cantillo & Julián Arellana, 2020. "Assessing the influence of indicators’ complexity on hybrid discrete choice model estimates," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 373-396, February.
    22. Todd McElroy & Keith Dowd, 2007. "Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 48-53, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:1:p:21582440241230363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.